Case 1:07-cv-00188-jgm Document 345 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 1 of 98 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT IMS HEALTH INCORPORATED; ) VERISPAN, LLC; and SOURCE ) HEALTHCARE ANALYTICS, INC., a ) Subsidiary of WOLTERS KLUWER, ) HEALTH INC., ) Case Nos. 1:07-cv-188-jgm ) & 1:07-220-jgm (consolidated) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) WILLIAM H. SORRELL, as Attorney ) General of the State of Vermont, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) ______________________________________________________ Trial Memorandum & Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of IMS Health Incorporated, Verispan, LLC, and Source Health Care Analytics, Inc. ______________________________________________________ Thomas R. Julin, Robert B. Hemley Mark Ash Patricia Acosta & Matthew B. Byrne Admitted Pro Hac Vice & Michelle Milberg Gravel & Shea, P.A. Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Admitted Pro Hac Vice 76 St. Paul St. 7th Floor Mitchell & Jernigan LLP Hunton & Williams LLP P.O. Box 369 2500 Wachovia Capitol Center 1111 Brickell Ave. Suite 2500 Burlington, VT 05402 P.O. Box 2611 Miami, FL 33131 802.658.0220 Fax 1456 Raleigh, NC 27602-2611 305.810.2516 Fax 2460 rhemley, mbyrne 919.821.1220 Fax 6800 tjulin, pacosta, or @gravelshea.com [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for IMS Health, Incorporated, Verispan LLC, and Source Healthcare Analytics, Inc. HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP / GRAVEL & SHEA, P.A. / SMITH ANDERSON BLOUNT DORSETT MITCHELL & JERNIGAN LLP Case 1:07-cv-00188-jgm Document 345 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 2 of 98 Case Nos. 1:07-cv-188-jgm & 1:07-cv-220-jgm TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ................................................................................................3 The Publisher Plaintiffs........................................................................................................3 The Information at Issue: Prescriber-Identifiable Data .......................................................3 New Hampshire Enacts a Prescription Restraint Law & it is Challenged.........................................................................................4 Vermont Considers Numerous Reforms..............................................................................7 Jan. 29 - Feb. 5, 2007: The New Hampshire Bench Trial ........................................................................................7 Feb. 15 - Feb. 22, 2007: The Vermont Senate Finance Committee Develops a Package of Reforms .......................................................................8 Feb. 27 - Mar. 15, 2007: The Senate Health & Welfare Committee Briefly Considers the Bill.................................9 March 23 & 27, 2007: The Senate Finance Committee Has a Change of Heart....................................................10 March 27 - April 30, 2007: A New-Hampshire Style Bill Races Through the House...................................................10 April 30, 2007: The New Hampshire Prescription Restraint Law is Declared Unconstitutional ......................................................................12 May 1-3, 2007: The House Committee on Health Care Quickly Amends the Bill.....................................13 The House Floor Reaction .................................................................................................15 The Findings ......................................................................................................................17 The Vermont Prescription Restraint Law ..........................................................................18 The Law Imposed Serious Penalties..................................................................................18 HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP / GRAVEL & SHEA, P.A. / SMITH ANDERSON BLOUNT DORSETT MITCHELL & JERNIGAN LLP Case 1:07-cv-00188-jgm Document 345 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 3 of 98 Case Nos. 1:07-cv-188-jgm & 1:07-cv-220-jgm The Imminent Threat & Reasonable Fear of Enforcement................................................19 The Amendment to the Prescription Restraint Law...........................................................19 Violations of the Law, as Amended, are Punishable by Severe Penalties.........................24 Damage Inflicted by the Amended Law on the Plaintiffs & Others..................................25 The Continuing Threat of Harm & Reasonable Fear of Enforcement...............................25 The Lack of Research to Justify the Law...........................................................................27 The State’s Expert Witnesses.............................................................................................28 Dr. Ashley Wazana ................................................................................................31 Dr. Aaron Kesselheim............................................................................................29 Dr. Meredith Rosenthal..........................................................................................29 Dr. David Grande...................................................................................................30 Mr. Shahram Ahari ................................................................................................30 The Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses .......................................................................................31 Dr. Thomas Wharton .............................................................................................31 Dr. Andrew Cole....................................................................................................32 Dr. Kenneth Ciongoli.............................................................................................33 Dr. Michael A. Turner ...........................................................................................34 Dr. Micky Kolassa.................................................................................................35 Mr. Peter Hutt ........................................................................................................35 PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW......................................................................................36 I. The Prescription Restraint Law Violates the First Amendment ............................36 A. The Law Fails Intermediate Scrutiny.........................................................44 1. The Law Applies to Speech That Is Not Misleading.....................44 2. The Governments Interests Are Not Substantial or Important...................................................44 ii HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP / GRAVEL & SHEA, P.A. / SMITH ANDERSON BLOUNT DORSETT MITCHELL & JERNIGAN LLP Case 1:07-cv-00188-jgm Document 345 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 4 of 98 Case Nos. 1:07-cv-188-jgm & 1:07-cv-220-jgm a. Protecting Prescriber Privacy is Not a Substantial or Important Interest ..........................45 b. Simply Lowering Costs by Suppressing The Publication of Truthful and Important Information is Not a Substantial or Important Interest ......48 3. The Law Does Not Directly Advance a Substantial or Important Government Interest.............49 4. The Law is Broader Than Necessary to Serve a Substantial or Important Government Interest............................53 B. The Law is Subject to and Cannot Survive Strict Scrutiny .......................55 1. Strict Scrutiny Applies Here ..........................................................55 a. The Law Regulates the Content of Non-Commercial Speech..............................................55 b. The Law Prohibits Dissemination of Lawfully- Obtained, Truthful Information of Public Concern ...........58 c. The Law Imposes a Prior Restraint on Speech ..................58 2. The Law Cannot Survive Strict Scrutiny.......................................59 C. The Law is Void for Vagueness & Overbreadth .......................................61 II. The Prescription Restraint Law Violates the Commerce Clause...........................65 A. The Law has an Impermissible Extraterritorial Reach ..............................65 B. Plaintiffs are Not Asserting a Facial Commerce Clause Challenge ..........70 C. The Publisher Plaintiffs Have Standing.....................................................71 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................72 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................................................................... ATTACHMENTS The Vermont Prescription Restraint Law .................................................................... Ex. A The New Hampshire Prescription Restraint Law ........................................................ Ex. B iii HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP / GRAVEL & SHEA, P.A. / SMITH ANDERSON BLOUNT DORSETT MITCHELL & JERNIGAN LLP Case 1:07-cv-00188-jgm Document 345 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 5 of 98 Case Nos. 1:07-cv-188-jgm & 1:07-cv-220-jgm The Maine Prescription Restraint Law ........................................................................ Ex. C Comparison of the 3 Prescription Restraint Laws Ex. D iv HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP / GRAVEL & SHEA, P.A. / SMITH ANDERSON BLOUNT DORSETT MITCHELL & JERNIGAN LLP Case 1:07-cv-00188-jgm Document 345 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 6 of 98 Case Nos. 1:07-cv-188-jgm